With the iPhone 6s and 6S Plus release yesterday, it's already clear that the 3D Touch technology is a useful addition to the user experience. Another notable development that is of interest is the upgrade to the camera with the jump from 8MP to 12MP, better autofocus and colour accuracy.

In the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus this has always been an impressive imaging device. Coated lens with optical stabilisation ensure that the bulk of pictures taken on it are crisp and sharp. Colours are true with good mapping of tones and exposure.

In moving on to the 6S and 6S Plus this is very much still the case. With 3D Touch, launching the camera into specific modes is a one-touch process. The handy popup menu allows you to pick shooting mode before launch. This will be really useful, as the scroll selector in-camera is quite fiddly.

I was interested to see differences in the images from both devices using the same settings and subject. The scene here offers up some interesting comparisons. Detail is captured clearly with both the 6 Plus and 6S Plus. The 6S Plus unsurprisingly offers more detail in a larger image.

Detail capture

Both images are similar. The 6S Plus image has more heft in file size (4.3Mb v 3.8Mb) and pixel dimension (3024 x 4032 pixels). The 6S also picks out the rust, cracked paintwork and wood grain a tad better..

iPhone 6 Plus

iPhone 6S Plus

TONAL CAPTURE

Tonal capture has better fidelity. The shadows on the 6S Plus image are denser, yet have similar lattitude towards the mid tones. In the shade beneath the foliage, more surface detail is pulled in with that larger sensor..

iPhone 6 Plus

iPhone 6S Plus

In summary

3D Touch offers easier access to the camera functions. I can see its benefit in flipping between video and photo modes so it's useful to those who regularly shoot both.

it was always going to be plain that the new sensor would offer up improvements. For those looking to upgrade from a 6 or 6 Plus, this won't be as evident as the jump from a 5S or below.

Original images

Last week, after a bit of a wait I received my iPhone 6 Plus. Opening the simple white, de-bossed packaging I was presented with the huge, glossy handset. After restoring effortlessly from iCloud I was up and running in minutes. Having been a user of iOS8 for quite some time, and seeing the new device up close in the Apple Store already there were no unexpected surprises in the new device.

At the time of writing, I have used the device now for roughly a week and I thought I'd share with you some of the nuances of the new device and where it really shines.

Things to get used to:

The sheer size of this device. Really has an impact on how you handle it - it feels a tad precarious for one handed photography and I recommend you position the Camera app bottom left of right (depending on whether you are left or right handed).

iphone6-comped

The thin-ness of it. Again means you adjust your grip. A case does help add heft but it’s definitely not as angled, weighty or as secure in the hand as say an iPhone 4 or 5. In saying that, after a week of being used and carried in pockets, jackets, trousers or shirt it hasn’t bent at all. No surprises there then.

Great new features:

The camera. It is really really great. Low light is where is comes into its own, or photographing items that need sharpness for total fidelity. Copying sketches from paper and whiteboards in particular shows the hardware lens stabilisation benefits.

The sheer size of the device. Have I mentioned this before? Going back to the iPhone 5 renders the smaller 4 inch display in a new light. It feels tiny. On the 5.5 inch 6 Plus display, apps look great. Even those that scale up to fill the screen. UI orientation feels much more apparent. Safari feels almost like its iPad / OS X equivalents.

The screen. In short, the resolution of this screen is awesome. Photographs look super crisp and fill the screen. Even in apps like Instagram, the detail in the images is exemplary. The whole experience of using apps is much more engaging.

BzN1VP7IAAA9Zcr

Conclusion:

In all I cannot fault this device. It looks great. Feels great, if a little... wobbly at times in the hand, yet it performs brilliantly. Those swithering between the 6 and 6 Plus, weigh up your needs, but I would always recommend the bigger device. This is aimed at creatives and image editors. I can’t wait to see some of the iPad titles like Procreate make its way onto the device but the added real estate makes doing things so much easier.

The 6 is a great option too. I have been up close with both units and both feel much bigger than previous models. 6 or 6 Plus it is down to personal choice. When the screen is off, the 6 Plus definitely looks like it belongs in Android territory. Flip the screen on though and you are immersed in iOS8 which really is coming into it’s own day by day with apps updating to take on the new functionality.

We saw the release of the Apple Watch last week and while on the whole it was expected; the overall design approach and execution was understated.
An unexpectedly expect able design you could say.

Apple makes no doubts that their new product is a watch. A very beautifully crafted quality watch at that. A watch that uses the same materials you'd expect in any wrist wear of value - polished steel, leather, high quality glass, some gold complete with the same design cues you'd expect in a timepiece.

And this is perhaps the problem. Actually problem is the wrong word here. Disappointment will do for now. The simple fact that it looks too much like a watch. Omitting its obvious quality construction, the design approach has been too conventional.

When the iPhone was initially launched there was nothing really like it. Phones were lumbered with keypads and boxy, phone-like forms. Overnight, Nokias and Motorolas began to look a lot older, and thicker. Yet with iPhone we were getting something that would invariably last a few years, but had a great design approach too.

It was an inoffensive, pared down approach and pretty much everybody on the planet, even Apple's rivals admired it. It was one of those launches where the design was not divisive. It had universal appeal.

However, a watch is a very personal purchase. Not in your pocket and many people will own and use the same watch for a number of years while it serves a primary function. On the whole - watches while internally complex are simple devices and perform simple, background tasks. And that simplicity in a sense protects or exempts them from obsolescence. It is a long term purchase, its function to keep track of time with a limited range of additional features. An accessory. A statement.

I do not own a watch. I haven't owned a watch for years. It was replaced long ago by my iPhone which pretty much does all of the same things and it has by in large been getting much much better at doing a multitude of other things over time. It's also replaced my camera, audio recorder and MP3 player.

Faster processors, bigger and better screens, more storage and apps, improved imaging with the camera and video. It's an ever frowing list. The pace of development in hardware and software dictates largely that the purchase of an iPhone has a feasible usage life of around 2-3 years or thereabouts.

General discussion about watches is generally limited with respect to the inner workings other than their accuracy and reliability. It's about design and style. Not essentially a problem for Apple as they and interlinked with design and style anyway. Cost for many isn't an issue. Many will spend thousands on a watch. And in turn, it's already apparent that this too won't be a hurdle for Apple.

The real hurdle is in, ironically time. Or life-time. The purchase of a watch is long term. Simply put, in most cases a watch is a long term purchase that doesn't accommodate the notion of obsolescence.

The very fact that the new Apple Watch makes reference to microprocessors and sensors, in the same breath as quality materials that are built to last is verging on oxymoronic. Yet, technical specification gives rise to just that. Specification. And specification gives rise to inevitable obsolescence.

From a software perspective; as it appears, Apple Watch will be all encompassing from a functionality point of view. To be fair, it has to be in this day and age. Users will expect to be able track and monitor all sorts of data from good ol' time to heart-rate, to Twitter, run times and text messages. Apple said that their intention was not to put an iPhone into a watch factor but having seen the functionality it appears from the outset that this is indeed what has happened.

I'm not questioning the extent of functionality here; but possibly the way it has been addressed and implemented from a User Experience / software point of view.

The exterior is all too familiar, and the software available on the Apple Watch is too. An almost conservative approach. Apple have always been cited for taking the complex and making it simple yet with their Watch they have taken the complex (complex in full features sense) from its other mobile devices and crammed them into the device.

We have the 'Digital Crown' which is to all intents and purposes an anti-touch user-input device. A way to solve the challenges of a device with such a small screen, yet it detaches the user from the interface and content itself. It's an old-school idiom - a physical selector/actuator. Gone are the subtle touch commands, pinches and swipes that are the mainstay of the sibling iPhones and iPads.

In some ways I think that these design responses are in fact challenges that Apple may not have needed to solve in the first place.

Based on their sculptural teaser the was the hope that the Apple Watch might not really just look like, well, a watch. Or indeed simply be a watch, which we know by now that it isn't. Yet, the concept of it being wearable, perhaps complimentary to an existing watch, like a Fuelband or Jawbone, a really simple form using simple materials. might have given broader appeal. Something that the tech market might just get.

If we were looking at this in a Designer versus Designer 'Top Trumps' vein, a Dieter Rams design viewpoint no doubt would look like a watch. But it would be a much simpler watch on the inside. It would probably be just a watch. Nothing else. Pure and simple.

On the other hand, if a designer like Philippe Starck had approached the same design task; he would have without doubt taken a bolder, more sculptural and abstract approach.

Had Apple looked at a more implied visual design in form, then it would have forced them to reject the software paradigm of the smartphone into something much simpler and more gestural.

Advances in screen technology and LED technology would have allowed this. Notifications could have been coloured glows or symbols prompting you to check your email or your Twitter feed (on your other device). Alerts could be acknowledged or ignored using simple touch gestures.

The time could be presented simply and in much less space using a whole range of simple or abstract ways. Combinations of shapes or single function elegant displays of time. A modern twist on the LCD displays of digital watches yet very much for 2014 (or 2015 when it is available).

And as time progressed; you could keep the watch as the interface was non-specific. Devices could come and go and it would continue to quietly track your heart rate and tell you the time; but it would always be able to sync up with the latest iOS devices when they were released.

Maybe time will tell. Apple followed a very safe route with design inside and out. This is probably a considered approach in a first edition launch. Maybe Apple know better than most of us that this is what we need for now.

Simply B&W has recently received a (long overdue) update in the App Store. For many of you who have used the app before, you may already know about the coloured digital filters available to manipulate your images.
It's long been standard practice for many Black and White photographers to shoot with coloured filters over the end of the lens. This may seem odd to those of you new to the idea of adding a coloured filter when shooting in Black and White. However such filters can dramatically change or enhance an image as the filtration has effect on certain parts of the image, and the filters too generally are dependent on the subject being photographed.

Within Simply B&W there are simulations of such filters, without the need to process film so you can instantly see how the various colours can have an effect on your images. It's a great way to experiment and find the best filter effect that suits the tone you wish to create. Dependent on subject the variation can be quite dramatic, as can be seen in the image as shown above.

Original image showing vivid colours and texture.

For detail in this particular tutorial, I will use a simple image shot much closer to home here in Scotland. Simple in composition, the palette is limited but there is a variety of textures which will serve well to illustrate the effects of the coloured filters. Shot on a sunny day it has hight contrast, vivid colour with striking white jetstream clouds in the sky.

Yellow filter applied

Orange filter applied

Yellow and orange filters

The primary filter of choice when shooting in black and white as it is generally useful for darkening skies and emphasising clouds with increased contrast. Whilst yellow filters darken blues, they will lighten greens, yellows, red and oranges. Orange filters render similar visual effects although slightly stronger yet not as bold and dramatic as those given by a red filter.

Red filter applied

Red filters

A red filter will markedly increase contrast between certain colours such as blues and greens in relation to lighter tones and highlights. Blue skies will be rendered almost in black with bright white clouds, adding instant drama to skies and landscape images. This increased contrast emphasises texture and detail in buildings and undulating surfaces where there is a degree of tonal variation. Reds too are lightened significantly, so interesting effects can be achieved when photographing strongly red coloured objects such as post boxes here in the UK or red flowers, making them appear lighter in tone.

Green filter applied

Green filters

Green filters are great for capturing detail in foliage, as they lighten the overall scene and enhance surface details. This is particularly useful for example, on organic structures such as buds and leaves. They make great enhancers to macro photographs picking out subjects such as insects from a natural green backdrop. Portraits too make good subjects for the use of green filters. Blemishes and skin tones are flattened out making for more flattering images.

Blue filter applied

Blue filters

Limited in application, blue filters can be used to inverse effect of red and yellow/orange filters. Lightening skies and darkening natural tones they can be used to effect to separate layers of water, sky and foliage in complex landscapes. The darkening effect too can vividly increase contrast in certain scenes or add an interesting effect to a portrait.

Experiment

There is no right or wrong; and while there are recommendations for application above, there are no hard and fast rules on where you should use coloured filters. Don't be afraid to try the range of colours on your images and decide for yourself which enhances to the atmosphere of your image.

The option to create presets or 'Bookmarked Edits' which allow you to enhance images with one-touch has been added, so you can try out a range of tonal manipulations in conjunction to the filters to experiment with interesting effects.

Of course filtration alone won't automatically make a poorly composed photograph better, but the awareness of how light reacts in varying conditions will help you to see shade, texture and tone in a new light (pun intended). In upcoming posts we can look at ideas for shooting with black and white photography; and essentially explore the ways we can use tone and shape to define our images.